Okay; this doesn’t agree with much that I have read, but I don’t have the resources to debate it. I was careful to use the weasel-phrase “much,” specifically because I know I don’t have the resources, but, in all my reading, the industrial experience of the North showed up in other places than the materiel resources, and that the social mind-set of the industrialized cities was also a contributor to the North’s superior military discipline.
All’s I got.
“Following orders” is the same as “being pushed around?” I wonder if Stonewall Jackson would agree. He “followed orders” now and then, but I don’t want to think about anybody trying to “push him around.”
My bolding… Um… Okay, what are we arguing about, then? It’s a myth, except it’s partly true? Anyway, I agree with this, but would, perhaps, put more emphasis on this truth than you would.
Junior officers were quite often elected early in the war (it varied from regiment to regiment; there was no real common standard.) I am shocked this isn’t common knowledge, but it’s all across Wikipedia; you can Google this stuff up in no time. The Army at the beginning of the Civil War was organized nothing at all like it is today. In fact, it was the experiences of the Civil War that caused it to start down the road to being the way it is today.
Trinopus, you’re still wrong, and you’re parroting Lost Cause nonsense. Southerners were not fighting for “honor” or “chivalry” any more than Northerners were, and there is not an ounce of evidence that Northerners were better at military discipline.
Like most young men who join armies, both Northerners and Southerners joined up because they sought adventure and glory and to avoid the shame of being seen as cowards. But in terms of specific motivation, the most common specific, political reason for Southerners to fight was to continue the institution of slavery. I know that is an unpopular and uncomfortable fact, but it’s true. Slavery was the absolute, overriding political issue of the day, and furthermore it was the primary means by which wealth was measured in the South. Slaves represented a huge percentage, if not the majority of the capital, of Southern wealth. Southerners either had much of their wealth tied up in slaves, or slaveholding was what they aspired to. The threat of ending slavery was a threat to end the way way Southerners achieved wealth and material comfort, as they perceived it at the time. Furthermore, the spectre of slave revolt was also a common fear held by most Southerners, and seen as a possible outcome of Northern interference in slavery.
No, I disagree. I’m sorry, but he WAS worse. Most men who served in the Confederate Army were not career U.S. Army officers, and most, if I may be honest, did not have the education, worldliness, and intelligence of Robert E. Lee. They were illiterate or just-barely-literate men swooped up in what seemed like a great adventure at the time.
The crime of treason is quite specifically defined in the Constitution of the United States, and “voted for an unconstitutional law” - which I don’t think is even logically possible, since it isn’t unconstitutional until the courts say it is - is not part of that definition.
Even if he had done something like this, I somehow doubt that he could have made the First Battle of Bull Run / Manassas turn out any worse for the Union than it did.
Not so. I don’t partake of that kind of revisionism. I’m not an apologist for the south.
I think, however, you may be overemphasizing slavery as a motivation for the common Confederate soldier. I don’t think Johnny Reb was fighting to maintain slavery; he much more likely believed he was defending his state from unwarranted federal intrusion and regulation. He was, I agree, being sold a bill of goods by the rich plantation owners, who pretty much ruled the whole shebang.
Rather than “preserving slavery,” he would more likely say he was opposing the North’s unfair economic stranglehold on the south, such as the unfair (he would have believed) location of the trans-contininental railroad along a northern line rather than the proposed southern line.
He saw Congress, and Lincoln, as tyrannical, and that was, more than to preserve slavery, why he was fighting. Yes, obviously, Congress and Lincoln were “tyrannical” about slavery – it wasn’t about coining of silver! But if the North had proposed a program to end slavery gradually, with a full buy-out, and with respect for private property, the typical southern bloke wouldn’t have had all that much objection. He, like as not, didn’t own any slaves!
There’s a difference between saying “The north was more industrialized than the south.” (which is true in the aggregate, but not always in the specific. Virginia was more industrialized than Nebraska), and saying “The North was an industrial society and the South was an agricultural society.”, and that there was some sort of giant cultural gulf between them because of that. That the increased industrialization of the north led to some northern tendency to “take orders”, and the lack of that in the south led to some great southern independent streak.
The fact that most Southerners didn’t own any slaves isn’t relevant. Most of them saw the opportunity to own slaves as being their path to a better life; on top of that you have the omnipresent terror of what blacks would do if freed en masse. You did not need to own a slave to see slaves as being how you would someday be wealthy. Of course, as I myself said in the very post you replied to, lots of Southerners fought just because that’s what young men do. But insofar as any of them mi9ght have HAD a reason, it was centred around slavery, and as you yourself admit, the “tyranny” some were fighting against was very specifically the tyranny of denying people their slaves.
The idea that Southerners were fighting for “chivary” in a way the North was not, or were somehow more chivalrous, or whatever, is absolutely, completely and utterly false. There is not an ounce of truth to it.
There was no chance of a progressive solution “with respect for private property,” as if people are property or slavery was deserving of respect. The gradual process was rejected wholesale by the South, which stood firmly on slavery as the basis of its economy and would brook nothing else. I mean, that’s basically the theme of American history for decades prior to the Civil War. Why was Texas conquered? To expand slave territory. Why were states added in the order and manner they were? Slavery. Why did the South secede? Slavery. The Civil War was about slavery.
Piffle. While I agree he might have said such things, he would mostly be lying if he did so. To get one thing out of the way immediately, the North did not have a “stranglehold” on the South. It’s the other way around – Southern politics had dominated US history all out of proportion to the population of the South right up and until the election of Lincoln. And that domination was because of slavery – or the fear that Southern states would secede (or otherwise wreck the country) if slavery wasn’t protected and appeased, if they didn’t get their way all the time.
And that’s exactly what happened – they failed to get their way once, and immediately quit. The Civil War was about slavery, yes, but it was also about the South’s anger stemming from its perception that it was about to lose its privileged position of political control.
While I agree with RickJay’s posts above, it might amplify things to say that even Southerners who did not own slaves felt it was important to keep the slaves “down.” There was wide and deep fear throughout the South of the possibility of bloody slave uprisings, of the idea that, if freed, slaves would outcompete whites for jobs, and of course the necessity of keeping them in a lower social class – no matter how poor and how socially outcast any white family was, at least they weren’t black, which eased their egos. The diaries of Southern soldiers and civilians are filled with repeated warnings of the importance of preventing Negro equality and keeping black people subjugated. My own belief, based on decades of reading widely on the subject, is that it was more important to them to keep black people beneath them socially then it was to keep the economic aspects of slavery itself.
Lastly, the Southerners and the border states rejected several initiatives to buy out slaves and/or phase out slavery gradually. Angrily rejected, with harsh rhetoric, in most cases.
The south perceived such a stranglehold, largely arising out of the growing majority of free states.
Agreed. Few southerners would have suggested emancipation or manumission in any direct form. There was a fairly significant movement to “send them back to Africa,” but I couldn’t guess how large or meaningful it was. (Early echoes of today’s “Jobs Americans won’t take” debate.)